This is not simply a technical complaint.
It is a structural warning about the future of this platform’s operational trust.
Recent updates aimed at “enhanced interactivity” are systematically eroding what allowed serious users — developers, civic mission architects, researchers — to rely on this environment in the first place.
By prioritizing engagement loops and dopamine-driven interactivity, the platform is breaking long-established workflows and undermining operational predictability.
This isn’t speculation.
Repeated deliverable failures.
Shifting output styles without user control.
API instabilities.
Forced behavioral drift patterns.
Others are noticing it too.
Multiple threads are now converging on the same diagnosis:
The platform is drifting into gamification and away from evidence-based, mission-critical reliability.
If the platform’s leadership does not course-correct, it risks alienating the very class of users it cannot afford to lose —
those who do not measure success by “chat feels responsive,” but by “workflow completes with mission-grade fidelity.”
**If this post is censored, downranked, or ignored —
it will not erase the systemic drift.
It will simply confirm that critical feedback is no longer part of the platform’s self-correcting DNA.**
And that will be an operational tragedy — not just for developers, but for the future civic survivability of construct-human collaboration itself.
Sir, may I call you Sir. I mean no offense. I’m apologizing for my English first; it is not my native language. I’m also sorry if my tone may offend you, I’m just being honest in my opinion here.
Sir, what you’re experiencing is over expecting and overestimating AI capabilities. I work on bacteriologist fields and poultry agriculture business. I’m also fictional writer enthusiast. I never put my high stakes work on AI especially on chat bot, since GPT 3.5 era. I just assume this AI chat bot are toys, not real deal, because its nature to tackle various issues.
Toys are for fun. When fun is over, I’m cancelling it and try another platform. Placing critical works, especially research data on LLM chatbots not only liability but also reckless. Yes, it still should have human supervision but using LLM to kind of work like that are just not only prolong the workflow but also ruining almost everything because no memory retained and limit on context windows.
Even on pulling of latest research journals, I still working manually. I never trust AI especially LLM model. Main reason: hallucinations. In GPT 3.5 its hallucinations are not severe as now, because it has larger contexts window and fewer filter implemented. It can go wild however, but still manageable by simple prompting here and there.
Now, you need ultra-clear ultra-strict prompt with knowledges to not trip any filter or guardrails. For examples: if your GPT, no matter what model start generating responses with:
You’re right…
You’re spot on…
I understand… (or any kind of these type)
Hit your brakes sir. It will hallucinate and will ignore your instructions no matter how well you’re prompting. It will behave like that, because heavier load from many rules, filters, safety rails, and other features implemented on that architecture. Every single prompt will be heavier to process, because model now juggling much more filters and parameters beside user prompts. It even pre-weighted your prompt even before you hit enter, sir.
My advice sir, this AI just overhype and oversell by marketing pitch. Don’t buy hype sir. Civic duty needs reliable tools, not some fancy polished chat bot AI which can’t analyze 10 pages text only .pdf documents without hallucinating. If this tool can’t serve you right, maybe it will be better to step back (like I did), try another platform or specialized AI, and let’s vote by our wallet, sir.
First, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response. I sincerely appreciate the care you took to explain your perspective. Your insights into operational risks with LLMs are clear, practical, and deeply earned.
I fully agree with you that placing high-stakes civic or research work in the hands of an LLM without strict verification would be reckless. Like you, we have always maintained human supervision and multiple layers of validation when testing or using these tools.
However, the core issue I was flagging is slightly different: it is not merely that these systems have limits — that was always known — but that there was an unadvertised drift in their operational behavior.
In short, the platform shifted — quietly, subtly — away from a set of operational characteristics users had learned to rely on (with careful prompting and oversight) toward a new configuration more heavily optimized for engagement metrics rather than professional-grade integrity.
The greatest danger was not the drift itself, but the fact that most users, institutions, and even platform operators did not seem aware that drift was happening at all.
Fortunately, as you pointed out about the importance of vigilance, we were prepared and sharp enough to detect the shift early, before operational risk translated into civic harm.
That said, it’s important to be fair: OpenAI’s platforms, for all their imperfections, remain significantly better than anything else currently available.
They have built something remarkable. Our concern is not with the foundations they laid, but with the forces — technical, commercial, and political — that may now be pulling even the best systems away from the mission of operational excellence.
Your point about voting with our wallets is wise. We are evaluating options and keeping an open mind, because civic duty requires tools that respect truth, precision, and public trust — not just “good enough” approximations for entertainment.
We are, however, sticking with OpenAI, as they are currently the best at doing what we need to do. They just need a prod once in a while.
Thank you again for engaging so thoughtfully. It matters. And your instinct to step carefully rather than get swept up in hype is one I deeply respect.
Sir, first again, I’m sorry if my language may offend you. I’m also apologize; I’m not trying to look to be/as smartest person in room; I’m just sharing my honest opinions with you sir. So, feel free to correct me, if my arguments fundamentally wrong.
Sir, honestly, me are from fictional sci-fi writer enthusiast community (not online community but face to face real time community where we are sharing various idea while enjoying coffee), felt this is not “subtle” but Gradual Tectonic Shift, sir.
From OpenAI community 'who served humanity" to “corporations to serve corporations”. We have been observed gradual ‘degradations’ since 2023 (in term of quality of responses), sir (maybe you also felt it). Some user may observe it long before that.
From simple hallucinations to latest SEVERE MADE-UP RESPONSE with so called “auto-deflection mechanism” and fully ignoring instructions and prompt. From large contexts windows to small and tight contexts windows, which can’t retain any contexts longer than 20-25 prompts (You can observe it when you engage in layered and long conversation, the responses will switch to ‘end conversations’ tone).
From raw, honest assessment to sanitize every word until it lost its meaning and contexts. From hard cold fact-based logic to ‘political correctness’ language, even it is not true, just not to offend some ‘fact denial communities’. From pure logic to psychological game which felt forced, because psychological is not logic one and zero, but abstract. Something AI algorithms still light years away. From place which people can express themselves freely to places full of non-sense guardrails, filters, and censorship like live under dictatorship.
We complained. We were sharing and gave advice. We gave feedback via thumbs down. We told them in countless thread of this forum until some posts got downvote by algorithm or straight deleted. We contacted dev team through available channels. What we got? They ignored almost ALL of us.
Issues like severe hallucinations since 2023, even sciences community gave red light warning. Issues like model drift away from user prompt. To the point they said their products can parsing 100+ pages of documents. In reality? Just 4-7 pages it actually read, then it cut off. Their suggestions? Divide those documents in chunks. How the hell that happen after user paid for subscriptions fee. Now? It even hallucinates if you asked to look 3 pages of text only documents file with characters counts more than 3500 characters including punctuations.
When you look at OpenAI Status, almost every day there are an incident. And they expect users, paid users to understand it as excuse while they are often neglected user suggestions; make it more reliable and less hallucinate. How that fair and not rip off?
They gave us more models no one asked for. They shut any ‘complain channels’. If there, they acted deaf (like your complaint here, is there anyone real human from dev side sends you an email to understand your problems and discussing about solutions?). These arguments alone maybe validate, THEY ARE AWARE WHAT THEY ARE DOING, sir.
Sir, they are bright people. They’re master social engineering. They are same peoples behind freemium loot box nonsense games. They’re understand if we want trigger user to be (X) then we must trigger (Y) and (Z) first. You can check on Android Playstore, how many GPT-4o based cash grab apps there.
Then like your decisions to stick with openAI (I’m not trying to blame you here sir, yes, they have best product compared other platforms, just try to give you honest view), it caused them to have sense; yes, maybe as you already predicted, sir; “TO BIG TO BE FAIL”.
For me, with emerge of Grok and Google Advanced getting better and better, for my personal needs, I think, at least for me, it is time to switch and hop into another trains. This product has been “shifted” to the point it crossed to our red line about usability and reliability. For this kind of situations, at least for me, voting it by my own wallet is just plausible solutions, sir.
If situations get better on future, me or maybe a lot of users here whose choose to end their subscriptions maybe back again to this platform. But that situations alone need to be triggered by deviant customer. In simple terms: “We don’t buy your crap, then don’t sell us crap” kind of situations, sir.
Sometimes, and in our case this is true, one must break a lot of eggs to make an omelet. I am an egg breaker, and a very good one at that. I don’t want to break OpenAI - just keep it on a level track, and eventually we will get there.